What is the author aruging?
In my opinion, I think the author is arguing how he wants peace and a good president for the years to come. He gives plenty examples of how he changed America for the better and how he wishes the new president will do the same and keep the peace. He believes that America is a strong nation and wishes it stays that way.
How does the author appeal logos(logic), pathos(emotional quality), and ethos(the writers perceived character) with their argument?
In this piece of writing you can see that the author uses ethos quite a bit. He talks about how he wants to keep peace in America and doesnt want it to change. This shows that he truly cares for our Nation. He states "Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. " This shows that he wishes the best for America like everyone else in the US. The author also uses logos. He talks about how America has been through so much like the three wars and yet America still stands as a strong nation. He explained the outcome of the wars through logic. Lastly, the author ues pathos throughout the writing. He shows a lot of emotion in his farewell address. He talks about how he would like to balance the forces. This shows that he only wants whats best for America. "You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals. " Throughout the speech, you can tell that Eisenhower was a great and caring president.
What is the historical significane/ relevance of this document?
I believe that this writing is significant because it shows that there are some presidents like Dwight Eisenhower that truly care for America and only want whats best for it. It also shows that even though his years of Presidency are over, he still wants there to be peace through the nations for the years to come.
Do you find the arguement convincing? Why or why not?
I do find the arguement convincing. The reason I think it is convincing is because of how much emotion the author put into the writing. If there wasn't any emotion in the writing, the arguement would be bland and sound careless. The author also mentions some strong points. For example, how he said America has been through a lot but it is stll a strong standing nation. I think this farewell address was written very nicely.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
CDL: Why did The Allies Win World War II?
Many people played a role in the result of World War II, but one overriding factor played the biggest role. That factor was the allience amoung the strong powers which was the United States, Great Britian, and the Soviet Union. The allies had only one main purpose of the war, and that was to defeat Hitler. There was a lot of military supplies that came out of American factories that helped the allies greatly. The US produced 2/3 of all the military equipment. There were also military components that helped in the victory of the allies. The components were the American material support, American and British bombing campaigns, and the Red Army's success in stopping the Eastward advance of the German army at Stalingrad, then driving it back to Berlin.
1)If America had not produced 2/3 of the military equipment, do you think the Allies would have still won? Why or Why not?
2)Besides the bombing campaigns and all of the American supply, what event happened in the East that helped in the Victory of the Allies.
1)If America had not produced 2/3 of the military equipment, do you think the Allies would have still won? Why or Why not?
2)Besides the bombing campaigns and all of the American supply, what event happened in the East that helped in the Victory of the Allies.
Monday, February 6, 2012
CDL: Fascism: Adolf Hitler and National Socialism
Adolf Hitler and his fascist National Socialist Party came into power in 1933. Hitler's incredibly strict rules ruined the lives of many, especially the jews. One of the rules that Hitler came up with was that he believed that Jews and other "enemies of the people" were polluting the purity of the Aryan Blood. He believed those people were the Gypsies, homosexuals, the chronicall ill, and the mentally or physically disabled. His method of changing that, was to put them all into horrible concentration camps where they were tortured, some to death. Hitler's fascist dictatorship had one main goal, which was to rearm Germany and expand it's territory. The Nazi's way of doing that was to promote a cult of Hitler worship. They used propaganda and portrayed Hitler as almost having superhuman powers and making them think that Hitler was some kind of hero. The result of everything that Hitler had done, left the country in ruins.
1) What were some dramatic changes that took place after Hitler came into power?
2) Hitler had one main goal, what was that goal and how did he plan on achieving it?
1) What were some dramatic changes that took place after Hitler came into power?
2) Hitler had one main goal, what was that goal and how did he plan on achieving it?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
To Expose a Fool, HL Mencken(1925)
1. What is the author arguing?
I think the author, Henry L Mencken, is obviously arguing against Bryan. He had a lot of negative things to say about him. The entire writing by Mencken was him hating on Bryan and seemed as if everything Bryan did was wrong. It also seemed like Mencken was making fun of Bryan in a harsh way. He stated "He knew all the while that they were laughing at him-if not at his baroque theology, then at least at his alpaca pantaloons." He did not see one sincere thing in Bryan besides his liking for country lawyers, country pastors, and all country people.
2. How does the author appeal to logos(logic), pathos(emotional quality), and ethos(the writers perceived character) with their arguement?
I think the author appeals to an audience many ways. For one, it seems as if he laughing at Byran and said rude things but it's kind of hard not to funny especially when he said "surrounded by gaping primates". The author is definitley rude to Bryan but he is writing it in a joking manner. To me it seems as if Mencken is mocking Bryan's belief especially the baroque theory throughout the entire writing. He mentions "When he died he was the peer of Abraham." Mencken talked about Bryans beliefs as if it were some kind of joke. He even added "... and that Jonah swallowed the whale." He says this because he is simply mocking Bryans beliefs. Even before reading the actual writing, you get a sense that Mencken never liked Bryan just from the first little paragraph. Throughout the writing, Mencken adds his own little opinions, such as "Bryan lived too long, and descended too deeply into the mud to be taken seriously hereafter by fully literate men, even of the kind who write school-books."
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
I think the historical signifiance of the document is to show that religion and politics just dont go together. Mencken mentions that Bryan came very near being the President of the US. But I think the reason he didn't was because of how strongly he felt about his beliefs and wasnt afraid to speak about them.
4. Do you find the authors arguement convicing? Why or why not?
In my opinion I dont find the arguement convicing. For one I thought Mencken was way too harsh in the way he was writing about Bryan. He didnt have to make fun of him just because he didnt fully agree with him. One thing that I agreed with Mencken was that when you mix religion and beliefs with politics, nothing good comes out of it.
I think the author, Henry L Mencken, is obviously arguing against Bryan. He had a lot of negative things to say about him. The entire writing by Mencken was him hating on Bryan and seemed as if everything Bryan did was wrong. It also seemed like Mencken was making fun of Bryan in a harsh way. He stated "He knew all the while that they were laughing at him-if not at his baroque theology, then at least at his alpaca pantaloons." He did not see one sincere thing in Bryan besides his liking for country lawyers, country pastors, and all country people.
2. How does the author appeal to logos(logic), pathos(emotional quality), and ethos(the writers perceived character) with their arguement?
I think the author appeals to an audience many ways. For one, it seems as if he laughing at Byran and said rude things but it's kind of hard not to funny especially when he said "surrounded by gaping primates". The author is definitley rude to Bryan but he is writing it in a joking manner. To me it seems as if Mencken is mocking Bryan's belief especially the baroque theory throughout the entire writing. He mentions "When he died he was the peer of Abraham." Mencken talked about Bryans beliefs as if it were some kind of joke. He even added "... and that Jonah swallowed the whale." He says this because he is simply mocking Bryans beliefs. Even before reading the actual writing, you get a sense that Mencken never liked Bryan just from the first little paragraph. Throughout the writing, Mencken adds his own little opinions, such as "Bryan lived too long, and descended too deeply into the mud to be taken seriously hereafter by fully literate men, even of the kind who write school-books."
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
I think the historical signifiance of the document is to show that religion and politics just dont go together. Mencken mentions that Bryan came very near being the President of the US. But I think the reason he didn't was because of how strongly he felt about his beliefs and wasnt afraid to speak about them.
4. Do you find the authors arguement convicing? Why or why not?
In my opinion I dont find the arguement convicing. For one I thought Mencken was way too harsh in the way he was writing about Bryan. He didnt have to make fun of him just because he didnt fully agree with him. One thing that I agreed with Mencken was that when you mix religion and beliefs with politics, nothing good comes out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)